Analysis optimzer

ABSTRACT

A method of preparing a set of target layout data for the application of a photolithographic friendly design (LFD) analysis or other photolithographic analysis. The target layout data is revised to remove areas or features prior to performing the LFD analysis. The features removed include features that have been determined to print correctly, duplicate features and features that are not sensitive to variations in process conditions. The revised target layout is analyzed to determine if the features that remain will print correctly on a wafer.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/857,958 filed on Nov. 9, 2006, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

FIELD

The technology disclosed herein relates to methods for preparing design data for manufacturing, and in particular, to methods for determining if features of a target layout of an integrated circuit will print correctly on a wafer when designated photolithographic manufacturing techniques are used.

BACKGROUND

In conventional photolithographic processing, an integrated circuit (IC) is created by printing a pattern of features defined on a mask or reticle onto a semiconductor wafer that is coated with photosensitive materials. The printed wafer is then chemically and mechanically processed to create various circuit components having shapes corresponding to those of the printed features. The wafer is then re-coated with another layer of photosensitive materials and the process continues to build various layers of the integrated circuit.

As the size or spacing of the features to be printed on the wafer becomes smaller than the wavelength of light used to print a pattern of features onto the semiconductor wafer, optical and other process distortions occur such that the pattern that is actually printed on the wafer may not match the desired target pattern. As a result, numerous resolution enhancement techniques have been developed to improve the fidelity with which a target pattern of features can be printed on a wafer. Examples of resolution enhancement techniques include optical and process correction (OPC), sub-resolution assist features (SRAFs) and phase shift masks.

Additional techniques can be used to verify that a desired target pattern will print on a wafer. These techniques, sometimes called design for manufacturing (DFM) techniques, sometimes called “hotspot” detection techniques, or sometimes referred to as lithography friendly design (LFD) methods, analyze a proposed circuit layout to ensure that the features will print correctly under a variety of different process conditions. These conditions will be specific for the manufacturing process selected, and can include variations in the dose and focus of the light that will be used to expose the pattern onto a wafer. After such an analysis, a circuit designer is alerted to the areas or particular features within the design that may not be properly manufactured. One approach to this analysis is to use a process model of some sort to estimate the appearance of the pattern on the wafer. This model is often calibrated to the behavior of a particular process or tool set, and encoded into software that allows rapid computation of the pattern on the wafer under the many variations of process conditions that may be reasonably expected.

If the model used in this approach is accurate, this can be almost assured of finding all the locations which may prove to be a problem for manufacturing. This rigorous analysis therefore represents a very reliable approach to detecting problems areas in an IC layout. However, although advances have been made in massively parallel computing that may allow simultaneous computation for many process conditions, this still remains a massive computation job, especially as TC dimensions grow smaller and the sensitivity to process variations grows. To complete a reasonable assessment of a layout in a reasonable amount of time with this full model-based treatment remains a challenge.

One approach to improve the speed of analysis is to use “libraries” of known problems. Here, the proposed circuit layout is analyzed by comparing the feature pattern of a target layout to a database library of known patterns that do not print correctly. The defective patterns are most often detected by a fabrication facility based on test patterns that are printed or from actual experience printing other similar circuits, but can also be simulated using a calibrated process model. As more defective patterns are detected under a variety of conditions, the database becomes increasingly large and the time required to confirm the manufacturability of a layout by comparison against this ever growing library can be take several days or longer using a high speed or networked computer system. Furthermore, it is possible that a new circuit layout will include features that will fail, but have not previously been detected and included in the database library. Therefore, even if a “hotspot” analysis is performed on a circuit layout, there is no guarantee that all errors can be found, and that all the features in the layout will print as desired.

SUMMARY

To address these and other concerns, the technology disclosed herein relates to a method of analyzing a set of target layout data to determine if the features of the target layout will print correctly on a wafer. Instead of analyzing all the features in the target layout, the data volume or number of features in the target layout data is reduced by removing features or areas that can be determined to print correctly. Those features or areas of the target layout that remain define a revised set of target layout data that is then subjected to a rigorous analysis.

In one embodiment, the data volume or number of features in the target layout data is reduced by removing features or areas of the target layout that have already been analyzed with an analysis tool or other tool and have been determined to print correctly. In addition, duplicated features or cells of features in the layout data can be removed such that separate analyses do not need to be performed for each instance of the same feature or cell.

In one embodiment, those features that remain in the target layout are fragmented into a number of edge fragments. In one embodiment, each edge fragment is analyzed to determine if it is part of a large feature, is next to a corner or is at a corner of a feature or is within a predetermined distance of another edge fragment. Edge fragments that are part of a large feature, are not at a corner or adjacent to a corner and are not within a predetermined distance of another edge fragment are removed from the target layout.

In one embodiment, the remaining edge fragments in the target layout are analyzed with an optical and process correction (OPC) tool. The OPC corrected edge fragments are analyzed to determine the sensitivity of an edge placement error (EPE) to process variations such as variations in dose and focus. Edge fragments having an EPE that is sensitive to process variations are analyzed with an LFD tool or other analysis tool to determine if the corresponding features of which the edge fragments are a part will print correctly on the wafer.

Any edge fragments that are determined to likely print incorrectly may be provided to a circuit designer in the form of an error list.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing and other objects, features, and advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying figures, wherein:

FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional system for performing a “hotspot” analysis;

FIG. 2 illustrates a technique for performing an LFD or other photolithographic analysis in accordance with one embodiment of the disclosed technology;

FIGS. 3A-3C are flowcharts of acts performed in accordance with one embodiment of the disclosed technology to perform an LFD analysis on a target layout;

FIGS. 4A-4G illustrate techniques for analyzing replicated features in a target layout according to an embodiment of the disclosed technology; and

FIG. 5 illustrates edge fragments of a target layout that are within a predetermined distance of each other.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional system for performing a lithographic “hotspot” analysis on a target layout. A computer system 20 receives a set of target layout data 30. The target layout data 30 is typically stored in a database in a layout description language such as GDS-II or OASIS. To perform the analysis, the computer system 20 also accesses an error database 40 that includes descriptions of feature patterns that are known to print incorrectly on a wafer under various process conditions. Typically, the error database 40 is populated with information received from a fabrication facility, but can also include data generated from simulation models. The computer system 20 then compares the feature patterns of the target layout data 30 with the feature patterns defined in the error database 40 to determine if the features of the target layout will print correctly on a wafer. Those feature patterns of the target layout that match the feature patterns in the error database 40 are used to produce an error list 44, which may be in physical or electronic form. The error list 44 can be reviewed by the circuit designer to either change the configuration of the target layout or the conditions under which the target layout will be printed so that circuits can be manufactured as desired.

FIG. 2 illustrates a system for performing an LFD or other photolithographic analysis on a target layout in accordance with one embodiment of the disclosed technology. In this embodiment, the computer system 20 receives a set of target layout data 50 or portion thereof that defines a number of features to be printed on a wafer. In order to reduce the time required to perform the LFD analysis, areas or features in the target layout that are known to print correctly are removed from the target layout to define a revised target layout on which the LFD analysis is performed. In addition, duplicates of features that are defined in the target layout are removed prior to performing the analysis. Finally, those features that are positioned far away from other features or are otherwise sufficiently robust such that they will print correctly are removed prior to performing the analysis. In the example shown, individual features or areas including groups of features 52-56 are removed from the target layout to create the revised target layout prior to performing the LFD analysis. Features 58 and 60 remain in the target layout for analysis by one or more photolithographic tools such as an LFD analysis 70, which is used to produce electronic or physical error list 80. It should be noted that, since the revised target layout is considerably smaller, the more rigorous, full model-based analysis techniques, which are impractical on the full layout, can now be executed in a reasonable amount of time.

FIGS. 3A-3C are flow charts of acts performed in accordance with one embodiment of the disclosed technology to prepare a revised target layout prior to performing an LFD analysis. Although the acts are illustrated in a particular order, it will be appreciated that the acts may be performed in different orders while still achieving the functionality described. In addition, not all the acts described need to be performed in order to achieve the benefits of the disclosed technology. Also, although the disclosed embodiments of the technology are described as being carried out for use with an LFD analysis, these layout data reduction techniques could be applied for use with other analysis tools.

A computer system executes a sequence of programmed instructions contained on a computer storage medium (CD-ROM, hard drive, DVD etc.) or received over a computer communication link such as the Internet, to create the revised target layout for photolithographic analysis. Beginning at 100, an original set of target layout data or portion thereof is received by the computer system on a computer storage medium (CD-ROM, hard drive etc. or from a computer communication link such as a wired or wireless computer communication link including the Internet etc.). At 120, it is determined whether any features or areas of the target layout have been previously subjected to an LFD analysis or another type of photolithographic analysis that confirms that the features will print as desired. If so, those previously analyzed features or areas are removed from the target layout.

In one embodiment, if a feature or group of features is removed from the target layout, a border area that extends inwardly of the boundaries of the features or area to be removed is maintained in the revised target layout in order to provide local context for the features that remain. In one embodiment, the border area has a width of one optical diameter of the photolithographic processing system to be used to print the target layout.

At 126, it is determined if there are any replicated features in the target layout. In one embodiment, replicated features having a size that is smaller than the optical diameter of the photolithographic process are combined such that the combined features have a size that is as large as, or larger than, the optical diameter. At 130, a search is performed in the target layout for patterns of features matching the combined replicated features. Duplicate patterns of the combined features are removed from the target layout at 132.

FIG. 4A illustrates a 4×8 array 200 of a number of identical replicated features “A” in a target layout. To avoid performing the LFD analysis for each of the 32 instances of feature A, the duplicate entries can be removed from consideration.

FIG. 4B illustrates a 3×3 sub-array 206 within the larger the array 200. The sub-array 206 includes a central instance of feature A 208 that is surrounded on all sides by similar features. In the example shown, the array 200 includes twelve instances of the feature A 208 that are surrounded by identical features. Therefore, the LFD analysis of one instance of feature A 208 can be performed and used for the remaining eleven instances of feature A 208.

In FIG. 4C illustrates an instance of feature A 210 that is located on a side of the array 200 and is bounded on three sides by similar features. In the example shown, there are six identical instances of a feature 210 in the array 200. The analysis performed for one instance of the feature 210 can be repeated for the additional five instances of feature 210.

FIG. 4D illustrates an instance of a feature A 212 at a corner of the array 200. In the example shown, there are four unique instances of a corner feature, each of which is analyzed separately.

FIG. 4E illustrates the similar features 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222 that are present in the array 200. For any 3×3 or larger array there is a minimum of nine separate instances of a replicated feature that need to be analyzed. In the example shown, the number of features in the array 200 that are subjected to the LFD analysis can be reduced from 32 features to 9 features.

FIG. 4F illustrates one technique for analyzing an additional feature 240 that interacts with features in the array 200. To compensate for the local interaction, a boundary box 250 is determined that extends outwardly from the feature 240 by a predefined distance such as the optical diameter of the photolithographic system (boundary box 250 is not drawn to scale). In the example shown, the boundary box 250 encompasses 16 instances of the features A in the array 200. Any instance of a feature that lies wholly or partially within the boundary box 250 is separately analyzed. In the example shown, the LFD analysis of the array 200 can be completed by analyzing the 9 different instances of feature A plus the 16 instances that are within the boundary box 250 of the feature 240 for a total of 25 analyses that are performed. However, this is still an improvement from separately analyzing each of the 32 instances of feature A.

FIG. 4G illustrates an example where a feature 254 is adjacent the array 200. In this example, a boundary box 256 is drawn extending outwardly from the feature 254 and wholly or partially encompasses five instances of feature A from the array 200. In this example, the analysis of the replicated features can be performed with 8 instances of features that are not within the boundary box 256 surrounding the feature 254 plus the analyses of the 5 features that are within the boundary box 256 for a total of 13 analyses that are to be performed.

In the example shown, it is assumed that each feature A is larger than some predetermined size such as being as large as, or larger than, the optical diameter of the photolithographic printing system. In one embodiment, if the replicated features have a size that is smaller than the predetermined size, the features may be combined to have a size larger than the predetermined size.

Returning now to FIG. 3A, the features that remain in the target layout are fragmented into a number of edge fragments at 136. Typically the features in the layout database are stored as a sequence of vertices that define the borders of polygons. Fragmentation is performed by adding additional vertices or fragmentation endpoints so that the size of the individual edge fragments that extend around the perimeters of the polygons is reduced. Each edge fragment is typically associated with a simulation site at which various printing parameters are determined.

At 140, each remaining edge fragment in the target layout is analyzed. At 142 it is determined if an edge fragment is part of a large feature i.e. a feature having a length or width (or both) that is greater than some defined minimum, Those edge fragments that are part of a large feature are marked as “large” features. What constitutes a large feature may be process defined or user selected. If the answer to 142 is yes, it is determined if the edge fragment is at a corner of a feature or is adjacent to a corner of the feature at 144. If the edge fragment is not next to a corner or at a corner, is determined whether the edge fragment is within a predetermined distance another edge fragment at 146. If the answer to 146 is no, then the edge fragment is removed from the target layout.

If an edge fragment is not part of a large feature, is at or adjacent to a corner of a feature or is within a predetermined distance of another edge fragment, the edge fragment is left in the revised target layout along with any edge fragments that are within an optical diameter of the edge fragment. FIG. 5 illustrates an edge fragment 260 defined between fragmentation endpoints 262, 264 that is included in the revised target layout. In addition, edge fragments 268, 270 and 272 are also included in the revised target layout because these edge fragments are within an optical diameter 276 of the edge fragment 260.

Again returning to FIG. 3B, it is determined if all edge fragments have been analyzed at 160. If not, processing returns to 130 until each edge fragment has been analyzed. At 170, those edge fragments that remain in the target layout are subjected to an optical and process correction (OPC) analysis in order to adjust the position of the edge fragments and improve the fidelity with which they will print on a wafer. In one embodiment, the optical and process correction uses a pre-bias optical and process correction technique as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/673,515, filed Feb. 9, 2007, which is herein incorporated by reference. The pre-bias OPC technique produces an OPC solution for each edge fragment that is close to that obtained with a more rigorous OPC analysis but takes less time to compute. However, if time and processing power permit, a more rigorous OPC analysis can be performed.

After the OPC analysis, the position of where the edge fragments will print on the wafer is determined. In one embodiment, the edge fragments are analyzed with an optical rule checking (ORC) tool to compute the edge's edge placement error (EPE) i.e. the difference between where the edge fragment will actually print on a wafer versus its intended printing position. In addition, a determination is made of how sensitive the EPE is to variations in certain process conditions such as variations dose and focus of the photolithographic printing system. In one embodiment, the sensitivity can be computed by determining EPE at two or more process variations which include but are not limited to dose, defocus and mask bias and then measuring the difference (ΔEPE) between EPE_(max) and EPE_(min).

Other process variations may include variations in illumination pattern or polarization or MEEF (mask error enhancement factor). Edge fragments are deemed not sensitive if they exhibit a ΔEPE with a value smaller than that specified by the user (typically set by the acceptable variation allowed for devices and wires) and also meet a constraint in which the absolute value of both EPE_(max) and EPE_(min) is smaller than user defined EPE threshold reflecting the maximum allowable pattern deviation with respect to the target features. Edge segments that have a small EPE and are insensitive to process variations can be removed from the layout. Those edge segments with a large EPE or that are sensitive to process variations remain in the target layout.

Those sensitive edge fragments that remain in the target layout form the revised target layout that is analyzed with an LFD analysis tool. One example of an LFD analysis tool is described in U.S. Patent Publication 2005/025177A1, assigned to Mentor Graphics Corporation and which is herein incorporated by reference. However, other analysis tools could be used.

If the LFD analysis indicates that an edge fragment will not print as desired, the edge fragment can be marked and included in an error list that is given to the circuit designer at 176 to correct the target layout and/or to vary the process condition parameters.

In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of the disclosed invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the illustrated embodiments are only preferred examples of the invention and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention. For example, although the disclosed embodiments remove features from the original target layout data to create the revised target layout data prior to performing an LFD or other analysis, it is also possible to mark or tag features and ignore any such tagged or marked feature during the analysis. Conversely, the analysis of the revised layout data could include only features from the original target layout that are tagged or marked. In yet another embodiment, edge fragments are not removed from the target layout but simulation sites for edge fragments are removed so that no analysis by a photolithographic tool takes place for those edge fragments. Therefore, the removal of a feature from a target layout includes both physical removal of the description of a feature or group of features from the target layout and removal from consideration of the features by an analysis tool. Furthermore the disclosed technology is not limited to only applying an LFD analysis on the revised layout. The disclosed technology can also be used to create a revised layout prior to applying other tools such as OPC, ORC or any other photolithographic analysis that takes significant computer time to run.

Therefore, the scope of the invention is defined by the following claims and equivalents thereof. 

1-23. (canceled)
 24. A method, comprising: with a computer, receiving a set of target layout data that defines a number of features to be printed on a wafer; determining that a first set of one or more of the features or areas of the target layout are not to be considered by an analysis tool; revising the target layout data so that the first set of features or areas are not considered by the analysis tool.
 25. The method of claim 24, wherein the determining comprises determining whether the first set of features or areas have been subjected to a photolithographic analysis confirming that the first set of features or areas will be print as desired.
 26. The method of claim 24, further comprising combining two or more of the features that each have a size smaller than the optical diameter of the photolithographic process into a combined feature, the combined feature having a size at least as large as the optical diameter of a photolithographic process used to print the features on the wafer.
 27. The method of claim 26, further comprising searching the target layout data for patterns of duplicate features that match the combined feature, wherein the revising comprises revising the target layout data so that the duplicate features are not considered by the analysis tool.
 28. The method of claim 24, wherein the revising comprises removing, marking, or tagging the first set of features, the removing, marking, or tagging causing the analysis tool to not consider the first set of features.
 29. The method of claim 24, wherein the revising comprises removing, marking, or tagging simulation sites for edge fragments associated with the first set of features.
 30. One or more computer-readable storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim
 24. 31. A method, comprising, with a computer, determining whether any areas of a target layout having a number of features have been previously analyzed, and if so, removing portions of the areas except for one or more border areas of the areas, the border areas providing local context for features of the target layout that are not in the removed portions; and fragmenting the remaining features in the target layout into edge fragments; and providing the fragmented features for photolithographic analysis.
 32. The method of claim 31, further comprising: for each of the edge fragments, if the edge fragment is not at a corner or next to a corner, removing the edge fragment.
 33. The method of claim 31, further comprising: analyzing the fragmented features; determining that one or more of the fragmented features will not print correctly; and adjusting the target layout and/or process condition parameters of the photolithographic process such that the one or more of the fragmented features determined to not print correctly will print correctly.
 34. The method of claim 33, further comprising manufacturing an integrated circuit using the adjusted target layout and/or process condition parameters.
 35. The method of claim 31, further comprising: analyzing the fragmented features to determine a sensitivity of a selected number of the fragmented features to variations in process conditions; removing one or more of the selected number of features from the target layout based on its respective sensitivity, producing an updated target layout; and analyzing the updated target layout using a lithography friendly design analysis tool.
 36. The method of claim 31, further comprising: combining two or more of the features of the target layout that each have a size smaller than the optical diameter of a photolithographic process into a combined feature, the combined feature having a size at least as large as the optical diameter; and prior to the fragmenting, searching the target layout for patterns of duplicate features that match the combined feature and removing one or more of the duplicate features to produce the remaining features for the fragmenting.
 37. A method, comprising: with a computer, removing features in a target layout that have been determined to print correctly, producing updated target layout data; analyzing the updated target layout data to determine features of the updated target layout data that are likely to print incorrectly when printed using a photolithographic process; and storing an error list indicating which features of the updated target layout data were determined to be likely to print incorrectly.
 38. The method of claim 37, wherein the removed features comprise edge fragments.
 39. The method of claim 37, further comprising performing model-based analysis on the updated target layout data.
 40. The method of claim 37, wherein the error list comprises marked edge fragments.
 41. The method of claim 37, further comprising correcting the target layout so that the features determined to be likely to print incorrectly will print correctly when printed using the photolithographic process.
 42. The method of claim 37, further comprising varying process condition parameters of the photolithographic process so that the features determined to be likely to print incorrectly will print correctly.
 43. The method of claim 37, wherein the analyzing comprises using a pre-bias optical and process correction technique. 